Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Okay, this idea just hit me while reading some of the newer posts (don't shoot! I haven't searched yet) but:

I wonder if the floors were searched for a hole or crevice in which to hide the hatchet?

We've often wondered how it was disposed of so quickly...

To anyone who thinks Lizzie Borden killed her parents, the axe is the crux to this saga. And one that most people choose to ignore. Where did the axe go.

Assuming that Bridget had nothing to do with the murders. Bridget saw Andrew alive and lizzie down stairs. Ten to fifteen minutes later Andrew is dead. The maid never mentions that Lizzie had changed. There just was not enough time for Lizzie to change (wash the blood) and get rid of the axe in that short a time.

Now everyone who thinks Lizzie is guilty appear to ignore that point. If Lizzie did have enough time to change and wash, then the axe is still on that property.

I thing I remember reading somewhere that the police tried and inspected the floors.

Now, having worked in many attics in fall river, there is an architectural particular about how most houses were built in New England. It was called ballon framing. If you went into the attic of the Borden house and crawled, without falling through the plaster ceiling, to the edge of the building, you could look or reach into the outside wall. All four walls.

I would drop a string with a weight on the end of it, above the third floor apartment, down into the wall until the weight went all the way down and hit the sill at the foundation, near the cellar windows. I would then drill a hole in the ceiling in the cellar pull out my weight and string. I would tie my electrical wire on the end of the string and pull it up from the cellar all the way up to the attic, then from the attic into a wall on the third floor apartment.

Most houses had the wall access blocked off in the attic. (as a fire stop, they would block off the access to the wall from the attic) But older homes, like the Borden, did not. If you got up into the attic, you could drop the axe into the wall cavity and it would drop all the way down to the first floor and/or get jammed somewhere in between.

I'm not sure if the Borden house was built with access to the ballon framed walls from the attic. And if it did, it is unlikely that Lizzie would have known this.

Also, there is no ready ladder to get into the attic.

Also, Lizzie would need to get by Bridget.

No...

Who ever committed those murders took the axe and the bloody clothes with them. The only way Lizzie could have done it, is if the maid lied, and was in on it.

mbhenty wrote:To anyone who thinks Lizzie Borden killed her parents, the axe is the crux to this saga. And one that most people choose to ignore. Where did the axe go.

Assuming that Bridget had nothing to do with the murders. Bridget saw Andrew alive and lizzie down stairs. Ten to fifteen minutes later Andrew is dead. The maid never mentions that Lizzie had changed. There just was not enough time for Lizzie to change (wash the blood) and get rid of the axe in that short a time.

Now everyone who thinks Lizzie is guilty appear to ignore that point. If Lizzie did have enough time to change and wash, then the axe is still on that property.

I thing I remember reading somewhere that the police tried and inspected the floors.

Now, having worked in many attics in fall river, there is an architectural particular about how most houses were built in New England. It was called ballon framing. If you went into the attic of the Borden house and crawled, without falling through the plaster ceiling, to the edge of the building, you could look or reach into the outside wall. All four walls.

I would drop a string with a weight on the end of it, above the third floor apartment, down into the wall until the weight went all the way down and hit the sill at the foundation, near the cellar windows. I would then drill a hole in the ceiling in the cellar pull out my weight and string. I would tie my electrical wire on the end of the string and pull it up from the cellar all the way up to the attic, then from the attic into a wall on the third floor apartment.

Most houses had the wall access blocked off in the attic. (as a fire stop, they would block off the access to the wall from the attic) But older homes, like the Borden, did not. If you got up into the attic, you could drop the axe into the wall cavity and it would drop all the way down to the first floor and/or get jammed somewhere in between.

I'm not sure if the Borden house was built with access to the ballon framed walls from the attic. And if it did, it is unlikely that Lizzie would have known this.

Also, there is no ready ladder to get into the attic.

Also, Lizzie would need to get by Bridget.

No...

Who ever committed those murders took the axe and the bloody clothes with them. The only way Lizzie could have done it, is if the maid lied, and was in on it.

I'm too busy today stoking my college football obsession to type more than a few lines, but I've always thought the murder weapon left the house with someone whether Lizzie did or did not do it. This is why David Anthony interests me, not because he's an uber-credible suspect but because he's an explanation for how the weapon disappeared. I don't think it was thrown on Crowe's roof. With unsolved crimes like this, the perpetrator is caught or gets away more due to luck of the draw than brilliant planning. Looking back it's easy to credit Lizzie with a level of criminal genius that doesn't gibe with everything else we know about her. This is also why Bowen interests me; to my knowledge he's the only non-household person we know about who was in and out before the police. Except the motive for Bowen to be involved in this has to be pretty much baked from scratch...there's not much out there to support his involvement. Maybe a buggy ride to church.

Well, I'm going against the flow here and saying that I do think that the Crowe's barn hatchet is THE one and the carpenter was telling porkies when he claimed it. If not, well no 92 was an old house and Lizzie didn't have to be a structural engineer to access odd hiding places. The hatchet could have been moved around between police searches surreptitiously and then found a semi-permanent home between the walls until Lizzie came out of jail.

Lizzie need not have been extremely bloodstained ( remember she changed outfits very quickly that morning and burned the paint-stained dress. She later gave the police a winter silk dress shown in court that no witness could identify as the one she wore on the Thursday morning, an extraordinarily suspicious action.)

Possum posted the results of experiments to show that Lizzie needn't have been bloodied like some horror film killer. These photos showed the hatchet 'killer' with only one lower leg affected by the 'blood'. Lizzie struck Andrew from behind, wearing his coat and was partially shielded by the dining room door frame and the back of the couch. For Abby she probably used Abby's gossamer over her own clothing. Lizzie had enough time after Andrew's death to accomplish everything, including disposing of the hatchet on the barn roof or elsewhere. She probably had about 15 minutes between Andrew's demise and calling Bridget.

Curryong wrote:Well, I'm going against the flow here and saying that I do think that the Crowe's barn hatchet is THE one and the carpenter was telling porkies when he claimed it. If not, well no 92 was an old house and Lizzie didn't have to be a structural engineer to access odd hiding places. The hatchet could have been moved around between police searches surreptitiously and then found a semi-permanent home between the walls until Lizzie came out of jail.

Lizzie need not have been extremely bloodstained ( remember she changed outfits very quickly that morning and burned the paint-stained dress. She later gave the police a winter silk dress shown in court that no witness could identify as the one she wore on the Thursday morning, an extraordinarily suspicious action.)

Possum posted the results of experiments to show that Lizzie needn't have been bloodied like some horror film killer. These photos showed the hatchet 'killer' with only one lower leg affected by the 'blood'. Lizzie struck Andrew from behind, wearing his coat and was partially shielded by the dining room door frame and the back of the couch. For Abby she probably used Abby's gossamer over her own clothing. Lizzie had enough time after Andrew's death to accomplish everything, including disposing of the hatchet on the barn roof or elsewhere. She probably had about 15 minutes between Andrew's demise and calling Bridget.

Why folks "brush aside" the Crowe barn hatchet, to me, is almost unbelievable. Would someone please explain to me how it got up there?? No one had been up there in YEARS! At least two. A hatchet does NOT "roof jump". Don't give me the line that it could have been spotted from ANYONES up stairs window! It was summer, with leaves in full bloom! Besides, you don't go UPSTAIRS to look at rooftops! You go on ROOFTOPS. THAT wasn't done!! The pile of lumber in the corner of the yard would have given ANYONE an opportunity to climb up quickly, and toss the hatchet. The bricklayers in Crowes yard never saw the boy climb the fence, BUT they were suppose to hear a hatchet hit the roof? IMO, whoever killed the Borden's, threw the hatchet on Crowes barn.

It was summer then, but within six weeks the leaves would have fallen and journalists, curiosity seekers and police would still have been looking for evidence in and around the Borden place. I think the hatchet would've been spotted by anyone looking from a third floor window, especially with binoculars. Plus I suspect that the same police who dismantled the wood pile and took apart the barn might have searched nearby buildings including a look-see on that roof. Maybe it was tossed up there as a misguided joke between individuals or as a means of getting attention during the trial - perhaps as grounds for a mistrial should Lizzie have been found guilty. Or maybe historical record fails us as to who was on that roof and when. In the end, I find it difficult to believe that the claimant would've falsified his ownership given the possibilities attached to any hatchet so near to 92 Second Street. He really owned it or he 'wouldn't have touched it with a ten foot pole.' <<(For Franz)

BOBO wrote:

Curryong wrote:Well, I'm going against the flow here and saying that I do think that the Crowe's barn hatchet is THE one and the carpenter was telling porkies when he claimed it. If not, well no 92 was an old house and Lizzie didn't have to be a structural engineer to access odd hiding places. The hatchet could have been moved around between police searches surreptitiously and then found a semi-permanent home between the walls until Lizzie came out of jail.

Lizzie need not have been extremely bloodstained ( remember she changed outfits very quickly that morning and burned the paint-stained dress. She later gave the police a winter silk dress shown in court that no witness could identify as the one she wore on the Thursday morning, an extraordinarily suspicious action.)

Possum posted the results of experiments to show that Lizzie needn't have been bloodied like some horror film killer. These photos showed the hatchet 'killer' with only one lower leg affected by the 'blood'. Lizzie struck Andrew from behind, wearing his coat and was partially shielded by the dining room door frame and the back of the couch. For Abby she probably used Abby's gossamer over her own clothing. Lizzie had enough time after Andrew's death to accomplish everything, including disposing of the hatchet on the barn roof or elsewhere. She probably had about 15 minutes between Andrew's demise and calling Bridget.

Why folks "brush aside" the Crowe barn hatchet, to me, is almost unbelievable. Would someone please explain to me how it got up there?? No one had been up there in YEARS! At least two. A hatchet does NOT "roof jump". Don't give me the line that it could have been spotted from ANYONES up stairs window! It was summer, with leaves in full bloom! Besides, you don't go UPSTAIRS to look at rooftops! You go on ROOFTOPS. THAT wasn't done!! The pile of lumber in the corner of the yard would have given ANYONE an opportunity to climb up quickly, and toss the hatchet. The bricklayers in Crowes yard never saw the boy climb the fence, BUT they were suppose to hear a hatchet hit the roof? IMO, whoever killed the Borden's, threw the hatchet on Crowes barn.

When and who threw it up there? Within a few minutes, the place was swarming with people, correct?

Many people believe Lizzie threw it onto the roof while Bridget was napping, after she used it on Daddy Dearest. Currying figures she had about 15 minutes to clean herself and dispose of the hatchet before alarming Bridget. There's also the possibility that she stashed it somewhere in the house and tossed it up there either in the days following the crime or even long afterward. It's not among my top theories but it's an interesting idea.

I'll have to take a look at the newspaper reports at the time which have been posted here but I am almost certain that the police at the time more or less admitted, (at the time the hatchet was found in 1893) that they had not searched neighbouring barns (nor presumably the roofs) at the time of the murders a year before.

Ok. After having a look at the neighborhood, I allow that it is possible. I think it had to have been later, though. I think someone would have seen "someone" running across the yard and throwing something.

Miranda wrote:Ok. After having a look at the neighborhood, I allow that it is possible. I think it had to have been later, though. I think someone would have seen "someone" running across the yard and throwing something.

Crossing the yard, yes; throwing, maybe not-- there was quite a bit of cover from trees, fences, buildings etc for that corner of the yard.

But here's the thing-- we are reasoning from the hatchet not being found during the search to the notion that the barn roof was a jim-dandy place to hide it, And that seems pretty dubious to me.

In the first place isn't it equally reasonable to think that it wasn't found in the search because it wasn't there yet-- remember the owner said it was lost at "around the time of the murders or a little after."

And second-- was it all that reasonable to throw it up there in the expectation that it would not be found? Is the proof really in the pudding in this case? Wouldn't it be more sensible to just drop it somewhere where it would be found, or throw it over the fence to the pear orchard? Leave it on top of the woodpile to suggest an intruder climbed the pile and jumped that fence?

The hatchet being found nearby and identified as the MW implicates no one and doesn't particularly rule out an intruder. The murderer being seen throwing the hatchet up on a roof (where it will make noise landing, may stick in the roof and make itself obvious, etc.) absolutely will. Doesn't throwing it up there increase the perp's risk of detection, rather than decreasing it? I think it makes more sense to reason forward from the "decision to throw" than backward from "it wasn't actually found at the time."

That is, so long as the hatchet doesn't have some sort of label on it saying "Lizzie Borden, Xmas 1891" on it-- which this one clearly did not.

Possibilities... I don't believe that was "the" hatchet for a minute, but anything is possible. I think I have posted before that I once lived in a very old house (built in the 1850s) it had a bunch of so called closets, that you could hide anything smaller than a breadbox. I can think where I could have hidden a dozen hatchets and they would probably never be found.
If I remember correctly, the Borden house wasn't anything fancy. It probably had little (or no) insulation. There was just dead air between the inner and outer walls. Closets may not have been "finished", leaving a lot of places to hide stuff. (I made bookshelves in mine with quarter round and 1x4s between studs)

We will probably never know who-dun-it, but the possibilities are ENDLESS.

Lizzie being guilty or innocent, I personally never think that the murder weapon was hidden in the Borden property.

I have no knowledge about the architectural structure of the houses in Fall River at the end of the 19th century. Maybe in such a house there were many places to hide "a dozen hatchets and they would probably never be found", as Miranda said in her post above. This could be true, but I think it is just too easy saying such a thing for US. For Lizzie (if she did it), it would have been a question of life and death, how could she have been so certain, 100% CERTAIN, that the murder weapon -- if hidden by her somewhere in the house -- would not ABSOLUTELY be found afterwards by the police? --- she was not playing a cache-cache game with Alice!

And if the murderer was an intruder, the question would be almost unnexistent --- the murderer took it away while escaped, so it certainly would not be found in the Borden house.

So there is a possibility that it could have been hidden inside the house Does anyone know if the house had a well? I need to go find some pictures of the house (inside), especially the cellar (the older threads). I remember someone mentioning that on that night (or early morning hours), Lizzie went into the cellar alone the second time. What about the space(s) under the stairs?

MysteryReader wrote:So there is a possibility that it could have been hidden inside the house Does anyone know if the house had a well? I need to go find some pictures of the house (inside), especially the cellar (the older threads). I remember someone mentioning that on that night (or early morning hours), Lizzie went into the cellar alone the second time. What about the space(s) under the stairs?

There was a well-and-well-house out back; and I have wondered about it. Since there was running water in the barn, I imagine it had some sort of pump? So it probably wasn't just an open hole one could throw a hatchet into, but probably had some sort of drawpipe and sheathing... or is there artesian water in FR?

I've been assuming if it were possible to just chuck the MW down the well, that would have been mentioned somewhere in the literature?

BTW the availability of water in the barn seems like the obvious answer as to why Lizzie's hands weren't all grubby from her searches for fish-weights or whatever. Either she didn't go to the barn and didn't get grubby, or she did and washed off; or, I suppose, went out there with bloody hands and washed them.

I have lived in a frat house which was of the same construction era-- originally a faculty house-- and there were indeed all sorts of niches and cubbys that wouldn't be found in a modern design and construction. But they were all pretty obvious to anyone searching. We may not mostly be familiar with that style of construction, but the police of 1892 were...

The real concern about the search to me is not that the police would have missed the monk's hole or the hidden strongbox or the loose floorboard through lack of familiarity with the possibilities; but rather that police procedure was so new to the world that they may not have had any effective protocols for a search-- and simply missed something obvious through disorganization...

TJ-

You're correct about the police procedure was new, as my husband pointed out. They probably didn't understand crime scene contamination (allowing those people coming and going). I had just gotten to thinking about if there was a loose floorboard, for example, in the room where Andrew was murdered (and wasn't obvious)? Or perhaps under stairs in the back and front or down in the cellar where one could hide something like an axe and it not be noticed.

Some of these posts have big blank boxes over part of them. I have a new computer and hope that's not me. I didn't think our editing feature was that crude.

I think the police did cut into some areas near chimneys, etc. At least in witness statements or somewhere Emma gave them permission to do so.

I have mentioned in an earlier discussion of this that regular domestic cats will only be confined in my 1890 house if they want to be. They know a way out I don't and it really aggravates me. Debbie rejoined us with her own story about cats slipping through nothing.

Other folks have mentioned the hatchet could have been slipped in a small rip in upholstery or some other way concealed in furniture. I have a feeling if Lizzie iwas guilty (of course not), that the hatchet was stored/concealed/hidden in the closet/walk-in/pantry place where the coal was kept and where she later removed the dress to burn. Since the police didn't suspect family right away I don't see why the hatchet couldn't have been jammed down into the coal scuttle and dealt with later.

Police also went through the contents of the privy, etc. They supposedly moved every scrap of hay and every stick of wood in a lumber pile.

The stable/barn still contained a sleigh and I think carriage. What has been said about upholstered furniture could also apply to these conveyances. If Lizzie was guilty maybe she DID make a trip to the barn to secrete the hatchet in one of the vehicles or in a hidden compartment in a box of scrap metal, sinkers, etc.

Debbie made a strong point about people watching roofs to make sure shingles didn't blow off, etc. If those who feel strong about the hatchet being discovered before June 1893 are correct then another plausible explanation is that the kid(s) who "found" it put it there. Possibly they found it nearby and created a small hoax to present it to the world. Possibly the person who claimed it had lost it in a grassy spot or near a bramble patch, the kid(s) found it and tossed it. In the old newspaper article I found there wasn't much if any mention of police action but I did find names of participants and whatever else I posted elsewhere. But my sources are limited. Surely papers local to FR would have more detail. Most of the national papers covered the incident with one, short paragraph.

On the other hand I can see an intruder holding onto the hatchet until he feels safely off Borden property, then tossing it. Yet if such was a man, men's clothes had deep pockets and were made of dark fabric. I could see a male murderer simply slipping the hatchet into his pocket and keeping it. A reason for not leaving the weapon would be if it could be identified as belonging to a certain person or profession.

My reply appears to be heavily edited. What the heck? I have a new computer. Is it me or is it the forum. Others posting here also have been heavily edited or whatever.

irina wrote:My reply appears to be heavily edited. What the heck? I have a new computer. Is it me or is it the forum. Others posting here also have been heavily edited or whatever.

It looks fine from here? Is your machine or your browser having trouble with the skin you are using?

A couple of my posts have disappeared into the ether recently, but I haven't seen any editing of them, though. Odd, Irina. I was about to post that the men in Crowe's yard would have been making noise which could have covered the noise of the small hatchet hitting the roof. The article posted by Possum in the other hatchet thread is contradictory about which roof the Crowe's barn hatchet (a very small weapon, handle only 13 inches long, landed on. There is one line, which refers to the police not searching there.

Curryong wrote:A couple of my posts have disappeared into the ether recently, but I haven't seen any editing of them, though. Odd, Irina. I was about to post that the men in Crowe's yard would have been making noise which could have covered the noise of the small hatchet hitting the roof. The article posted by Possum in the other hatchet thread is contradictory about which roof the Crowe's barn hatchet (a very small weapon, handle only 13 inches long, landed on. There is one line, which refers to the police not searching there.

I have discovered that if I shift away from the page after hitting "submit" on a post-- even just to another open tab-- the post will vanish.

If I hang in until the site returns me to the thread, it will not-- even if someone else is posting at the same time.

This was not necessary when I first joined a couple of weeks ago-- not sure what changed...

Curryong wrote:I was about to post that the men in Crowe's yard would have been making noise which could have covered the noise of the small hatchet hitting the roof.

I'm not sure that this is entirely true.

I'm sure it would be true for the various folks just hanging out on stoops, etc. But not necessarily for the workmen themselves; from my time on various construction sites, one pretty much knows what noises are a product of the crew you are on, and anything else stands out pretty sharply.

Plus of course there's no special reason to feel sure they were making noise at the necessary time; the window was a bit narrow to be waiting for a lull to cease...

On the plus side, though, in contrast to the whirrs and buzzes typical of a modern site, they'd mostly have been making pounding and sawing sounds. I guess an augur bit would whir a little, but it wouldn't carry far.

Considering the timeframe and that the day was a warm summer day, maybe the workmen took an early lunch, or maybe lunch came at that time?

I have no idea what a "skin" is since I'm cyber-stupid, but on the other thread where there was a bit of a dust up a number of posts looked like they had had a square of white paper put over them so they were mostly not visible. Then when I posted here I noted the same thing but I see it all came through OK. I believe there had been editing on the other thread so I thought maybe that was it but I have never seen that here before. The site isn't working good for me but I'm on Wi-Fi so all sorts of things can happen. I also have a touchy touch pad that can do funny things except on the other thread I was just scrolling and reading and a bunch of posts had the white paper effect. It will all work out I am sure. Probably me.

Curryong wrote:A couple of my posts have disappeared into the ether recently, but I haven't seen any editing of them, though. Odd, Irina. I was about to post that the men in Crowe's yard would have been making noise which could have covered the noise of the small hatchet hitting the roof. The article posted by Possum in the other hatchet thread is contradictory about which roof the Crowe's barn hatchet (a very small weapon, handle only 13 inches long, landed on. There is one line, which refers to the police not searching there.

I had one vanish, too, but when I went back and opened the forum to repost it repopulated itself...sometimes this happens for me and sometimes not. A good way to avoid this is to copy your post before hitting submit. Easy to say and east to forget.

irina wrote:My reply appears to be heavily edited. What the heck? I have a new computer. Is it me or is it the forum. Others posting here also have been heavily edited or whatever.

Everything looks fine from here. You may want to send a PM to Stefani, to let her know the troubles you are experiencing.

Thanks, debbie, common sense thing I must do!

Just before eleven is a bit early to have lunch, isn't it, although I suppose it's possible? It depends on what the workers were doing, surely? A dull thud on a barn roof may not have registered at all, in the scheme of things. We sometimes forget how really noisy the 19th century could be. Nearer the street would be the sounds of wagons, carts, buggies, horses. Hall's stables over the road would have had quite a number of horses and vehicles coming and going, for instance.

Irina-

Everything looks good here.. must be on your end? I've not had a problem with posting, submitting or seeing everything when I get on.

The reason I mentioned my issues on the forum first was because I don't know if it's me or something else. What got my attention though was just scrolling through the other thread I noted a number of other people's posts looked edited and I hadn't written anything. That's creepy. Everything seems OK now.

Concerning workmen taking lunch around 11:00 or so, in the old days it was common for workers to start work VERY early in the heat of summer and it would be very reasonable to take an early break. My own parents got up at 3:00 in the morning to avoid heat during the day in Riggins, Idaho where I was born. No air conditioning, bottom of a canyon, if something needed to be done, get up before the sun.

Considering TJ's musings, for that matter Lizzie could have tossed the hatchet out the back door as far as she could toward the back fence.

The most important question is why did the MURDERER, whoever he or she might have been, think the hatchet shouldn't be left at the scene, or couldn't leave the hatchet at the scene. In the first instance I could suggest Lizzie would think the hatchet not being there would say the killer took it with him. In the second instance, perhaps an intruder kept the hatchet because it was his and because he wanted a weapon to defend himself as he escaped. None of these explanations satisfies me. And there is something hinky about the Crowe barn hatchet whether or not it is THE weapon.

irina wrote:The reason I mentioned my issues on the forum first was because I don't know if it's me or something else. What got my attention though was just scrolling through the other thread I noted a number of other people's posts looked edited and I hadn't written anything. That's creepy. Everything seems OK now.

Concerning workmen taking lunch around 11:00 or so, in the old days it was common for workers to start work VERY early in the heat of summer and it would be very reasonable to take an early break. My own parents got up at 3:00 in the morning to avoid heat during the day in Riggins, Idaho where I was born. No air conditioning, bottom of a canyon, if something needed to be done, get up before the sun.

Riggins; haven't thought about that village since the last time I was there; which would have been 50 + years ago... Is it still just a strip along the river? Or did it spread up toward the ridge? Must have been around 250-300 souls in the early sixties...

I'd imagine that Fall River, as a seaport town, wouldn't have been nearly as hot as Riggins, which must push or pass three figures on a summer's midday?

Yes, as a seaport, there would have been some sort of breeze, you would imagine.

Rebello refutes all the reports of it being sweltering that used to occur in reports of the Borden murder, on Page 61.

'Weather report until Thursday night, August 4th 1892. Fair, preceded by coast showers today, warmer Thursday, variable winds. Herald office temperature 8am. 66, 12 noon 72 and 2pm. 76. Highest 78, Lowest 63.
Fall River Daily Herald.

Quick conversion from F to C for me. I grew up with F but have long since become used to C! Good grief, 25 degrees is nothing!!

Yes, working days in the 19th century and earlier were incredibly long and arduous. However, witness statements would surely mention if the men in Crowe's Yard were having a bit of lunch at 11am or so, wouldn't they? Unless they were incredibly anti-social, you would think they'd choose a shaded spot and have a pipe smoke and a bit of a chat along with their food and drink.

Perhaps they just wanted to get the job done and worked through, in order to go home a bit early, cramming a pie or sandwich into their mouths as they worked, along with swigs of water!

irina wrote: ... In the second instance, perhaps an intruder kept the hatchet because it was his and because he wanted a weapon to defend himself as he escaped. None of these explanations satisfies me...

Irina, why doesn't this (conjectural) explanation satisfy you?

I've often thought that the weapon may have had some identifying mark or label on it which was unable to be removed and therefore, it had to be taken. In the months after I first joined this forum I had a couple of debates with former members over this very question.

Why, in an age before fingerprinting and long before DNA, didn't the murderer just chuck the hatchet down near the couch? It would have been so much simpler. The only explanation I can come up with, as a Lizzie did it person, is that the hatchet was a household one which was bought, new and gilded, for the trip to Marion and may have been recognised by Emma.

I don't think Lizzie believed that Emma would give her away, but the shock of seeing a hatchet bought by Lizzie as the murder weapon, might have been too much.

A problem I have with Lizzie having bought a hatchet is that the police tried to find where she could have bought a hatchet and no shop keeper came forward. Lizzie was apparently a memorable person and I wonder how many women in that day bought hatchets. Of course maybe a shop keeper simply kept quiet.

On the Lizzie did it side I could see her, a novice murderess, thinking that no hatchet=intruder. It seems there have been modern cases where an inexperienced killer had similar thoughts. Even to this day no hatchet = Lizzie didn't do it for many people. Though I don't think she did it, this is a very poor agrument for her lack of guilt.

Considering the intruder theory, like I have said the hatchet could have been an instrument for a man's trade. He may have wanted to keep or needed the hatchet. It may have been the only weapon he had and he felt the need to use it to defend himself if he was apprehended. If there was an intruder maybe Lizzie or Bridget would have been assaulted if they entered a room at the wrong time.

I don't know where I stand on the matter of gilt on a hatchet or on Abby's skull. Everything was handled so sloppy, who knows. She surely held the false hair piece on with something and gilded hairpins are a possibility. It is interesting that the newspaper articles about the Crowe barn hatchet mention gilt as in it was either a new hatchet or it had been used as a DECORATION. It would be interesting to further understand when in those days a hatchet would have been gilded and used for a decoration. However I would assume that a gilded decorative hatchet wouldn't have a razor sharp edge.

I suppose no-one should be surprised at anything the Victorians crammed into their homes as decorations when you contemplate stuffed owls under glass domes, elephant feet umbrella stands and taxidermied crocodiles.

However, I have to saw I have a bit of trouble imagining a gilded axe or hatchet hanging up on a wall. I suppose a cigar store wooden Indian (most politically incorrect nowadays, of course,) might have been given a gleaming tomahawk.

The only axes I've ever seen of that type are small and gilded but have ivory handles. They were brought back from India to Britain by military people in the days of Empire. I can't imagine Lizzie grabbing an ivory handled item to do Abby in.

I have to say I do favour the idea of THE weapon being a nice shiny and sharp new one, with or without a gilded edge.
Its provenance is a complete mystery, like the rest of this frustrating case. I'm even reduced to wondering whether Emma, on one of those visits to Uncle John at Dartmouth, took a Davis hatchet home with her as a present for the Marion trip, unknown to her hosts. It's not very likely, though.

I just had a thought while reading these posts- does anyone know if Andrew bought wood or chopped his own? What if there was a hatchet for that purpose? Obviously, it would be small pieces of wood he'd be cutting. Perhaps he bought a new hatchet for that purpose and it was left in the barn? If Lizzie did it, she would have known it was in the barn.

Arthur, from the Swansea farm, came to No 92 to chop the kindling, apparently. (He also washed the upstairs windows when they needed doing.) it's not known whether Andrew chopped any if they ever ran out. I suppose he did. The police searched the cellars and the barn and the outside privy. No hatchet was found beyond the very old blunt ones in the cellar that the police took away. Maybe Andrew had bought a nice new hatchet for use in the barn. If he did however, neither Bridget, Lizzie nor Emma knew anything about it, or said they didn't.

Thanks, Curry! I didn't know about Arthur (I'm guessing it is in the transcripts?) doing the kindling and the upstairs window. I would guess that if he did, one of them (or all 3) knew and didn't say (like you pointed out). But I'm of the opinion that someone took the hatchet with them....

Another possible explanation for the hatchet disappearing into thin air is that the murder weapon wasn't a hatchet. Possum mapped the wounds in Abby's head which certainly fit with a hatchet blade. I'm unsure if the evidence from Andrew's face is so strongly indicative. We also assume both Abby and Andrew were killed by the same person with the same weapon. This is mere conjecture, but for a moment consider that Lizzie killed Abby and Bridget caught her in the act. Then Bridget, for reasons unrelated to Lizzie's, perhaps as per BOBO's evidence, killed Andrew with something entirely different like a meat cleaver that could be washed and put away in a matter of minutes. Neither of them could betray the other. I don't think this happened but sometimes finding a solution involves going back to the beginning and not assuming anything, including hatchet or the same murderer or the same motive or massive blood splatter or that Bridget was telling the truth. Hindsight can make Lizzie into a criminal genius, throwing a hatchet onto a roof where it lays for almost a year and killing Abby first so her estate would pass to Andrew when, in reality, she only needed to kill Abby in a way to appear accidental to set straight the inheritance.

Yes, I do think that we have to go right back to basics with every famous murder case, perhaps more especially the Borden murders as there aren't suspects crawling out of the woodwork, unlike many others. Haven't meat cleavers been ruled out though, as Andrew's injuries are inconsistent with an attack by that weapon?

I do think that Andrew's murder is the sticking point with many who study these killings. At a pinch, knowing the relationship between Abby and Lizzie, some of those who are adamantly against Lizzie as a murderess might possibly agree that given the right amount of rage, she COULD have killed her stepmother. This is, of course, because there was ample time for her to clean up and dispose of the weapon at 9:30 am. That generous timespan simply isn't there with Andrew's murder at around 11am.

Hence the many theories that propose two different murderers, leaving a pristine and calm Lizzie, and a murderer who walked off with the weapon, or who cleaned the meat cleaver! If someone else killed Andrew, however, it would have to be someone with a grudge or similar motive.

I thought of the gilded hatchet as decoration as maybe something used in a parade or store display or sign or something. Just some pictures that entered my head and I could be way off base. In that day when people didn't have all the cheap Chinese tools and stuff we have today it would surprise me that anyone would use a usable hatchet for a mere decoration.

I have made the point before that Lizzie's barn story is extremely detailed and chances are she wasn't there that morning. I wonder also if she found a new hatchet hidden up there. I mean, if she had anything to do with the crime.

Bridget in testimony or witness statements said she never used an axe or hatchet at the Bordens, to chop kindling as it was all done and stored in the cellar. This comment doesn't ring true with me because I chop my own wood and never have enough made. However I suppose if one hires help it would be different. It just seems to me that Bridget WOULD have used a hatchet for something in the household or that she would have had occasion to cut down a piece of wood for better kindling.

Could we think/assume the Bordens must at times have had poultry (besides pigeons) that needed dressed? Would, presumably Bridget, have removed heads, wings and feet by disjointing them with a knife or might she have used a cleaver...or hatchet?

Yes, irina, you would have imagined so, although a cook's saw or boning knife would probably be used before a hatchet, especially a gilded one, surely? I can imagine Abby taking care of boning and dressing poultry funnily, before I can Bridget, although I'm sure Bridget did help. She was so terrified by the police and court she would have said she was up on the roof before admitting to being anywhere in that cellar near axes/hatchets!

Small gilded hatchets could well have been used as decoration, irina, it's just that I've never heard of it. As I said before, 19th century interior design and furnishings could tend to the bizarre. In my beloved inter-war detective novels country homes always have a collection of weapons of all sorts hanging on a wall near the suits of armour and convenient for the murderer.

The hatchet could have come from the barn but it's odd that no shopkeeper ever came forward in that case and said that Mr Borden had purchased a new hatchet from him recently. The hatchet, where it came from and where it went afterwards, is going to remain one of those enduring mysteries of the Borden case, I expect.

Here's what needs to happen to 92 Second Street:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/15/ge ... e-down-to/

Debbie,

Much of the Borden household is the original, yes? I figure that the furnishings aren't original (I think I read somewhere that most was replicas). It would be interesting to see.

Perhaps it needs to happen to Maplecroft ( though I'm sure its new owner will be meticulous) rather than No 92, because so much of Maplecroft's beautiful original fittings have been completely ripped out in quite recent times.

The owners of 92 have tried as much as they can to recreate Lizzie's home for modern day visitors, (furniture, decor etc) but after all, so much happened to the Second St home after Lizzie left, becoming a duplex again etc, that not that much was left of 1892.

The staircase and some internal fittings like the front door remained of course, I don't mean that, just that Maplecroft was exceptional in its day.

Am I misremembering or didn't the police find a hatchet with a broken handle in the a Borden 2nd street basement?

The nature of the killings (overkill, it was PERSONAL) and that Lizzie and Bridget weren't attacked said to me it was one of them, and yes I believe it was Lizzie.

Working backward, shouldn't there have been a newish, useful hatchet in the Borden cupboards for chicken necks and similar tasks? Isn't the fact that the only hatchets found were those relegated to the basement as unusable or dull indicative that the murder weapon probably came from the Borden house, and was not brought in? A hatchet was as common as a blender today. There should have been one in the kitchen or barn that was in good order; the fact there wasn't one speaks to it being the murder weapon. Which indicates Lizzie (or Bridget) versus an intruder. Where was the daily use hatchet--?

Wouldn't they have used a cook's saw? Not that I'm an expert in chopping and dressing whole plucked birds or anything, but they could have had a chef's knife or something similar, I suppose. Funny, I can imagine Abby chopping up chickens but not Bridget.

I suppose they could, Curryong. I'm not an expert either on tools to prepare birds or fish. I suppose they bought their birds whole from the butcher. But my point is, shouldn't there have been a decent hatchet on the premises that the police could find? It seems a basic tool of life in the 19th century. If they had multiple hatchets in the basement, shouldn't there have been one in good working order? If you need a tool enough to have several....then it seems you'd have one 'good' one. I'm arguing that the absence of a decent working hatchet indicates it was missing.

Yes, Phineas, I do see what you mean. I'll have to take another look at police and Bridget's witness statements that Thursday afternoon and see whether anything was said about kitchen implements like hatchets.

Yes, my point regarding Mount Vernon and the Borden house is that employing that level of technological scrutiny might discover a secret place to hide a hatchet until it could be safely moved elsewhere. 92 Second Street was changed at Andrew's direction when the family moved. Perhaps he had a secret hiding place built in; he didn't appear to fully trust banks or he wouldn't have had an upstairs safe. Maybe before the safe he had a hidey-hole just big enough for a hatchet.